| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH V4 2/5] cpuidle: list based cpuidle drive
|
To: |
Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH V4 2/5] cpuidle: list based cpuidle driver registration and selection |
|
From: |
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:35:24 -0400 |
|
Cc: |
venki@xxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, suresh.b.siddha@xxxxxxxxx, sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:37:11 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<alpine.LFD.2.02.1103250245570.32565@x980> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<20110322123208.28725.30945.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110322123233.28725.92874.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1103222254420.10549@x980> <4D89BBDD.5090505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1103231633030.12911@x980> <4D8B5197.2060306@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1103250245570.32565@x980> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:05:36AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > I think there are other problems too, related to saving and restoring
> > of pm_idle pointer. For example, cpuidle itself saves current value
> > of pm_idle, flips it and then restores the saved value. There is
> > no guarantee that the saved function still exists. APM does exact
> > same thing (though it may not be used these days).
> >
> > The problem also is that a number of architectures have copied the
> > same design based on pm_idle; so its spreading.
>
> pm_idle is a primitive design yes, but I think the issue
> with pm_idle is a theoretical one, at least on x86;
> as there isn't any other code scribbling on pm_idle
> in practice. So this is clean-up, rather than bug-fix work...
>
> > > It isn't immediately clear to me that all of these options
> > > need to be preserved.
> >
> > So what do you suggest can be removed?
>
> I sent a series of small patches yesterday to get the ball rolling...
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/24/54
>
> I think the xen thing can go away.
The xen thing being the setting of cpuidle to halt or the proposed
patch?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home